But similar to what you said before, the human body has always been the human body, and the proper way to train it has always been the proper way to train it, regardless of our understanding or our ability to explain.
I'm not sure I can say that Michael. Simply because in my lifetime i've seen the notions of what was good training and what was not good training change quite a bit. A lot of the stuff that's coming out now about the myofascial connections looks oddly similar to some of the stuff the chinese were talking about centuries ago. As I've said, I'm no doctor or scientist, but when I read some of these articles about fascia and they discuss how our view of the muscles in the body was formed, it's really hard to accept that we had it all figured out decades ago.
Is this really the foundation of "IP/IT/IS"? How is this any different from sports performance in general?
I appreciate everyone's' contribution to this thread. I must say that contrary to the way it might sometimes appear, I am not arguing against "IP/IT/IS." I'm simply trying to draw out your explanations and maybe try to get you to think about it in a different way. I have learned a great deal from my discussion on this subject, and I am better off for it.
I think that's a hard one to answer right now. Simply because of the incomplete view that we currently have of the body, which makes it even more difficult to quantify exactly what's being trained in the IP realm. I think we may find, eventually, that this growing new view of the body gives us a more clear way to explain the IP side of things, but the usage of it is very different than what most anyone in athletics is doing today. I know that makes it almost sound like there's a lot of blind faith going on, but it's something that can actually be felt. Which is why you see so many people always going back to the "it has to be felt", because I don't think we really have a clear, scientific vocabular to explain what's happening, yet.
no worries Michael, I enjoy the discussion.